The vast majority of people I know who vote Republican have no money (are poor) so the redistribution of wealth fear must not be why they vote that way.

I've always assumed they vote that way because of religion...but I really don't know.

Originally Posted by Vaneda

I guess count me in on the first part. ...snip...

I think conservatives get a bad rap because people see them vote against things like minimum wage increases, universal healthcare, more benefits for the poor, and those people assume that the conservatives just don't care about people or that they are all rich. But it isn't that simple.

People generalize and simplify too much.

Originally Posted by Rheanna83

And that's not fair. Most conservatives that I know are very much about helping others, they just don't believe it is the government's job to do so much of it. Someone said something about society having an obligation to do certain things. In my experience, one of the things that libertarians and conservatives have in common with each other, and where they differ from liberals, is in how they define society. Libertarians and conservatives usually see society as "us" regular people doing something about things; liberals see it as them casting the right vote, and the government taking care of it.

Yes, I am sure there are many liberals who do help others, and give to charity, etc, so don't go off, please, I am talking about the philosophy that leads to voting. Liberals vote for the person who promises to get the government to do something about it (whatever it may be) and libertarians & conservatives vote for the guy who will let them keep more of their freedom and money, so that things can be done on a local and personal level.

Interestingly, that is also reflected in the way people give to charities. Research has consistently found (as was reported by on 20/20 http://newsbusters.org/node/9323 ) in 2006, that people who vote and call themselves conservative give more, much more, to charity than liberals. Apparently, conservatives put their money where their mouth is. Liberals want to put someone else's money there.

Yes, these are generalizations, but they hold true for a large majority.

libertarians & conservatives vote for the guy who will let them keep more of their freedom and money, so that things can be done on a local and personal level.

Originally Posted by elfsmomsc

Here is something that I TRULY do not understand and I'm not trying to be snarky when I say this...I hear many conservatives say they want less government. But then they turn around and want the government to pass laws and constitutional amendments that say we cannot marry someone of the same sex and that we are not allowed to terminate our own pregnancies if we so choose.

Why is it "right" to expect the government to make those personal decisions for us, yet it is "wrong" for them tell us how to run our businesses and to make us pay for programs we don't want, etc...etc... Why should the government regulate my personal morals, but yet not regulate my business/financial morals?

ScrappyTam - I think that's a VERY legitimate question. But the "stances" taken by the parties are very often nonsensical if you really look at them.

I think the Libertarians are in many ways trying to become the party the Republican party was supposed to be - so they want to leave people alone, as well as having smaller government. But your point is one of many conflicting stances I see in both parties, which I don't think has a logical explanation.

The pews never miss a sermon but that doesn't get them one step closer to Heaven.
-Speckla

libertarians & conservatives vote for the guy who will let them keep more of their freedom and money, so that things can be done on a local and personal level.

Originally Posted by elfsmomsc

Here is something that I TRULY do not understand and I'm not trying to be snarky when I say this...I hear many conservatives say they want less government. But then they turn around and want the government to pass laws and constitutional amendments that say we cannot marry someone of the same sex and that we are not allowed to terminate our own pregnancies if we so choose.

Why is it "right" to expect the government to make those personal decisions for us, yet it is "wrong" for them tell us how to run our businesses and to make us pay for programs we don't want, etc...etc... Why should the government regulate my personal morals, but yet not regulate my business/financial morals?

I really don't understand the difference.

Originally Posted by ScrappyTam

Logical questions like this are the reason I am Libertarian, and
not Republican. I want the government to go away and leave me
alone, for the most part.
My knee jerk right wing conservative
relatives would hyperventilate if we discussed my views on things
like the legalization of drugs, or the contrast between their vehement
hatred (and fear, honestly) of anything anyone gay favors, versus
their condoning and excusing the adulterous antics of their own spiritual leaders.

The real dogmatists on both sides
cannot be reached, mainly because they really do not hear you,
most responses seem scripted, or like sound bites. If you really
can't argue/discuss the philosophy that lies behind why you think
what you think, then conversing with me will just be fraught with
frustration, and pain, so I let them go their merry way blissful in their ignorance.

Makes it hard to find someone you really support to vote for!

CG since Tuesday!
July '08
Suave Naturals Trop Coconut for cowash
Giovanni Direct Leave in-looking for a better option
FX Curls Booster gel-liking this so far
--and with a shopping list an arm long of new things to try! LOL

libertarians & conservatives vote for the guy who will let them keep more of their freedom and money, so that things can be done on a local and personal level.

Originally Posted by elfsmomsc

Here is something that I TRULY do not understand and I'm not trying to be snarky when I say this...I hear many conservatives say they want less government. But then they turn around and want the government to pass laws and constitutional amendments that say we cannot marry someone of the same sex and that we are not allowed to terminate our own pregnancies if we so choose.

Why is it "right" to expect the government to make those personal decisions for us, yet it is "wrong" for them tell us how to run our businesses and to make us pay for programs we don't want, etc...etc... Why should the government regulate my personal morals, but yet not regulate my business/financial morals?

I really don't understand the difference.

Originally Posted by ScrappyTam

Logical questions like this are the reason I am Libertarian, and
not Republican. I want the government to go away and leave me
alone, for the most part.
My knee jerk right wing conservative
relatives would hyperventilate if we discussed my views on things
like the legalization of drugs, or the contrast between their vehement
hatred (and fear, honestly) of anything anyone gay favors, versus
their condoning and excusing the adulterous antics of their own spiritual leaders.

The real dogmatists on both sides
cannot be reached, mainly because they really do not hear you,
most responses seem scripted, or like sound bites. If you really
can't argue/discuss the philosophy that lies behind why you think
what you think, then conversing with me will just be fraught with
frustration, and pain, so I let them go their merry way blissful in their ignorance.

Makes it hard to find someone you really support to vote for!

Originally Posted by elfsmomsc

This pretty much sums it up for me. I didn't really know what Libertarian was until, uh, probably a year or less ago. I thought I was a Republican with some odd ideas on other things... hehe.

Interestingly, that is also reflected in the way people give to charities. Research has consistently found (as was reported by on 20/20 http://newsbusters.org/node/9323 ) in 2006, that people who vote and call themselves conservative give more, much more, to charity than liberals. Apparently, conservatives put their money where their mouth is. Liberals want to put someone else's money there.

Yes, these are generalizations, but they hold true for a large majority.

Originally Posted by elfsmomsc

I don't think measuring how much money is thrown at a cause paints a clear picture.

In some cases, the liberals are too poor to donate money for a wing to a hospital or a library at the college to be named after them. Instead I've known many at the poverty level who, after working 2 jobs to support their family, still donate their time and energy... to their communities, their churches, and to those who are still less fortunate than they are.

I don't have a lot of money, but I have donated a lot of time and energy, not only to the Obama campaign (including traveling, creating an area on a website devoted to helping others working for the campaign find host families, serving as a delegate, hosting a volunteer from another state in my home for 2 weeks, registering voters, calling voters to let them know when to vote and that our polling place this year has changed, etc) but have been donating my time and energy to food pantries, Habitat for Humanity, church/school fundraising... various activities going all the way back to being a candy striper volunteer at the hospital 25 years ago.

As has my son (I think the idea of public service in our culture is important and so I encouraged my son as well). He too has very little money but has volunteered both for the food pantry and at a nursing home near him.

libertarians & conservatives vote for the guy who will let them keep more of their freedom and money, so that things can be done on a local and personal level.

Originally Posted by elfsmomsc

Here is something that I TRULY do not understand and I'm not trying to be snarky when I say this...I hear many conservatives say they want less government. But then they turn around and want the government to pass laws and constitutional amendments that say we cannot marry someone of the same sex and that we are not allowed to terminate our own pregnancies if we so choose.

Why is it "right" to expect the government to make those personal decisions for us, yet it is "wrong" for them tell us how to run our businesses and to make us pay for programs we don't want, etc...etc... Why should the government regulate my personal morals, but yet not regulate my business/financial morals?

I really don't understand the difference.

Originally Posted by ScrappyTam

Exactly! In the past, Democrats believed we all had an obligation to take care of the poor, etc. and taxes were higher to pay for these services. You voted Republican if you believed that people should have control over their money and WOULD take care of others on their own.

Reagan was the first President to tie all the social issues into the parties. Not for the better at all b/c people can have conflicting views.

A coward is incapable of exhibiting love; it is the prerogative of the brave.

Interestingly, that is also reflected in the way people give to charities. Research has consistently found (as was reported by on 20/20 http://newsbusters.org/node/9323 ) in 2006, that people who vote and call themselves conservative give more, much more, to charity than liberals. Apparently, conservatives put their money where their mouth is. Liberals want to put someone else's money there.

Yes, these are generalizations, but they hold true for a large majority.

Originally Posted by elfsmomsc

I don't think measuring how much money is thrown at a cause paints a clear picture.

In some cases, the liberals are too poor to donate money for a wing to a hospital or a library at the college to be named after them. Instead I've known many at the poverty level who, after working 2 jobs to support their family, still donate their time and energy... to their communities, their churches, and to those who are still less fortunate than they are.

I don't have a lot of money, but I have donated a lot of time and energy, not only to the Obama campaign (including traveling, creating an area on a website devoted to helping others working for the campaign find host families, serving as a delegate, hosting a volunteer from another state in my home for 2 weeks, registering voters, calling voters to let them know when to vote and that our polling place this year has changed, etc) but have been donating my time and energy to food pantries, Habitat for Humanity, church/school fundraising... various activities going all the way back to being a candy striper volunteer at the hospital 25 years ago.

As has my son (I think the idea of public service in our culture is important and so I encouraged my son as well). He too has very little money but has volunteered both for the food pantry and at a nursing home near him.

Originally Posted by hadtochangemyname

I just want to make sure I'm clear on what you're saying here. Republicans typically just throw money to have a college named after them as their idea of a donation?

I know for me personally, I don't have a lot of money right now either. I am a poor college student yet I'm also a Republican. I work 40 hours during summer and winter breaks, but I'm making very little money and already have a tremendous amount of debt. In the meantime though I have continued to volunteer at a Catholic nursing home, as a Big Sister for Big Brothers and Sisters, and at Food My People Food Bank every week, on top of tutoring economics ..all while being a full time student.

Oh, I donate my blood and marrow too. Where as I could be "donating" my plasma and getting paid like a lot of college students.. but it didn't seem right.

Republicans don't always throw money at a situation, there are many who can give at a personal level too.

libertarians & conservatives vote for the guy who will let them keep more of their freedom and money, so that things can be done on a local and personal level.

Originally Posted by elfsmomsc

Here is something that I TRULY do not understand and I'm not trying to be snarky when I say this...I hear many conservatives say they want less government. But then they turn around and want the government to pass laws and constitutional amendments that say we cannot marry someone of the same sex and that we are not allowed to terminate our own pregnancies if we so choose.

Why is it "right" to expect the government to make those personal decisions for us, yet it is "wrong" for them tell us how to run our businesses and to make us pay for programs we don't want, etc...etc... Why should the government regulate my personal morals, but yet not regulate my business/financial morals?

And as far as rich people being allowed to be average: I think Bush has gotten pretty far in life considering how utterly average he is. I doubt he would be the leader of the free world if he was poor.

I completely agree with this. A lot has to do with where you start out.

I recommend the book Nickel and Dimed.

Originally Posted by BB

MOST rich people start out advantaged (family money, family who value education, businesses in the family etc.) and MOST poor people start out disadvantaged (poor schooling, chaotic home life etc.) Rich people who start out very poor and work their way up are rare. Poor people who start out very wealthy and fall are rare. Social standing/class has a lot more to do with what your parents and grandparents did than your own efforts - the playing field starts out very uneven.

Get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me. -Muhammad Ali

The last Republican/Libertarian I dated was the son of a very successful self-made man, who believed that if people lost their homes as a result of the recession, well, that would be very hard (can you say Hooverville?), but keeping government out of a banking bailout was more important than keeping roofs over the heads of voters.

I felt he erred by believing that individuals would pick up the slack that local government currently fills, in paving and maintaining roads, providing clean water, and keeping public order. It seemed to me he inherited his father's former Amish beliefs about community responsibility, while at the same time being uninterested in the concerns of people outside his ken. I neither saw him, nor his father act on behalf of their community in a service-oriented way.

Except for his alleged service-minded fraternity at the preppy college he attended.

I completely agree with this. A lot has to do with where you start out.

I recommend the book Nickel and Dimed.

Originally Posted by BB

MOST rich people start out advantaged (family money, family who value education, businesses in the family etc.) and MOST poor people start out disadvantaged (poor schooling, chaotic home life etc.) Rich people who start out very poor and work their way up are rare. Poor people who start out very wealthy and fall are rare. Social standing/class has a lot more to do with what your parents and grandparents did than your own efforts - the playing field starts out very uneven.

Originally Posted by CurlyGina2

Sadly, I know more than a few to whom this has happened. Some of them are beyond poor ---- they're dead.

libertarians & conservatives vote for the guy who will let them keep more of their freedom and money, so that things can be done on a local and personal level.

Originally Posted by elfsmomsc

Here is something that I TRULY do not understand and I'm not trying to be snarky when I say this...I hear many conservatives say they want less government. But then they turn around and want the government to pass laws and constitutional amendments that say we cannot marry someone of the same sex and that we are not allowed to terminate our own pregnancies if we so choose.

Why is it "right" to expect the government to make those personal decisions for us, yet it is "wrong" for them tell us how to run our businesses and to make us pay for programs we don't want, etc...etc... Why should the government regulate my personal morals, but yet not regulate my business/financial morals?

I really don't understand the difference.

Originally Posted by ScrappyTam

Hurray! Lovely post.

Originally Posted by TK*

This was already explained awhile back, but I'll take a stab at it again. I believe the above are reasons that more and more Repubs are turning to third parties, like the Libertarian party. I *do* truly want less government involvement in day-to-day life, including moral and religious. I don't want prayer in schools, I don't want the 10 Commandments in public buildings, I don't want the government to tell two adults they can't get married, regardless of sexual orientation. I draw the line at abortion, because *I* personally feel an unborn child should have the rights the rest of us are granted by the Constitution, and therefore people should not be able to take away those rights (i.e. right to life). It has nothing to do with pushing religious beliefs onto others, or even morals. It's simply about human rights, and I think everyone should have those certain "unalienable rights" that the Constitution grants us.

However, I would be satisfied - elated really - if they would remove the amendment making it legal and let states decide, as was the original plan for anything NOT in the U.S. Constitution. Then, if your state makes abortion illegal, and you dislike that, you have an option of moving. Or vice versa. And all of the citizens could vote on it.

I really think the government's main role should be securing the borders. I don't want them involved in much of anything...

[ I draw the line at abortion, because *I* personally feel an unborn child should have the rights the rest of us are granted by the Constitution, and therefore people should not be able to take away those rights (i.e. right to life). It has nothing to do with pushing religious beliefs onto others, or even morals. ..

Originally Posted by Rheanna

I don't know. I think your reasoning IS based on morals. At least a bit.

But to piggy back on you talking about Repub's going to a third pary. I was talking to a few of my friends who are, or rather were, republicans and they are mad as hell. "They (right wing crazies) stole our party"

I kinda feel bad for them. Because now the party is linked to racists and extremists.

Here is something that I TRULY do not understand and I'm not trying to be snarky when I say this...I hear many conservatives say they want less government. But then they turn around and want the government to pass laws and constitutional amendments that say we cannot marry someone of the same sex and that we are not allowed to terminate our own pregnancies if we so choose.

Why is it "right" to expect the government to make those personal decisions for us, yet it is "wrong" for them tell us how to run our businesses and to make us pay for programs we don't want, etc...etc... Why should the government regulate my personal morals, but yet not regulate my business/financial morals?

I really don't understand the difference.

Originally Posted by ScrappyTam

Hurray! Lovely post.

Originally Posted by TK*

This was already explained awhile back, but I'll take a stab at it again. I believe the above are reasons that more and more Repubs are turning to third parties, like the Libertarian party. I *do* truly want less government involvement in day-to-day life, including moral and religious. I don't want prayer in schools, I don't want the 10 Commandments in public buildings, I don't want the government to tell two adults they can't get married, regardless of sexual orientation. I draw the line at abortion, because *I* personally feel an unborn child should have the rights the rest of us are granted by the Constitution, and therefore people should not be able to take away those rights (i.e. right to life). It has nothing to do with pushing religious beliefs onto others, or even morals. It's simply about human rights, and I think everyone should have those certain "unalienable rights" that the Constitution grants us.

However, I would be satisfied - elated really - if they would remove the amendment making it legal and let states decide, as was the original plan for anything NOT in the U.S. Constitution. Then, if your state makes abortion illegal, and you dislike that, you have an option of moving. Or vice versa. And all of the citizens could vote on it.

I really think the government's main role should be securing the borders. I don't want them involved in much of anything...

Originally Posted by Rheanna

I do agree with you...as a liberal, I'd like smaller gov't and gov't to keep its paws out of most aspects of our lives, and I'd like all religion kept out of gov't. The federal gov't has to get involved in religious issues, otherwise the "bible belt" states would have us all following the conflicting bible rules instead of actual laws. I don't agree with you about abortion. As a supporter of human rights, I can't in good conscience give a fetus rights over the rights of the pregnant woman. For me, her rights as a sensient being always have to come first. If abortion laws reverted back to the states, abortion would only be available to women in the "blue" states...mostly the east and west coast states, and women in the middle of the country would be unduly burdened. A Republic doesn't run by "majority rules" anyway. That's a "tyrrany by majority" (and think of what would happen to minority civil rights if the majority white population could vote on what rights to give them).

BTW, there is no Constitutional Amendment about abortion. That was decided by Roe V. Wade, which set legal precedent, not a Constitutional Amendment.

Didn't really read the whole thread, but to kind of answer the OP question, we have to take into account that back in the day, the republicans had a pretty solid platform and a great number of americans were in fact republicans, it wasn't till the Reagan era that a shift happened. The reagonomics that favored the rich and slighted the poor is what really started dividing americans as a whole. So much so that a majority of independents are swingers who were once republicans and who abandoned the party because of the shift they didn't agree with, however these same people were also very reluctant to side with democrats, so they stayed in the middle and swung votes. There r however some people who have equated politics with conservatism and moral system. They remain republicans because they have wrongly defined what it meant to be republican. It's no longer a political clutch to them its part of their value system, its a way of life, they can't separate politics from faith, so they blindly vote a certain way because that's how they were raised. Now that the party has gone up in flames, they still can't seem to wake up and walk away because like i said it's their way of life.